Judgment · High Court

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Mitra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG Mr. M. Bhagabati, Advocate Mr. K. Gogoi, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

O R D E R

24.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Mr. M. Bhagabati, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.

The present application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation to the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.3870/2024.

This Court finds it relevant to take note of the directions which were passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.3870/2024. Paragraph Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said order being relevant are reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 3/5 “4. This Court, vide order dated 22.05.2025, had directed Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 to obtain instructions as to the specific period for which Rs.12,05,874/- was to be paid to the petitioner, as vehicle hire charges.

Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 has submitted letter no.GNZ-27/2019/757 dated 23.05.2025 issued by the office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara and an attached Statement of pending bills of the petitioner’s vehicle, which is to the effect that the outstanding dues payable to the petitioner is Rs.12,05,874/-, for the period from March, 2021 to May, 2023.

The letter dated 23.05.2025 issued by the office of the District Commissioner, Goalpara along with the Annexures is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X collectively.

In view of the respondents having admitted that they are liable to pay Rs.12,05,874/- to the petitioner, all the respondents are directed to ensure that the payment of the entire amount is made to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

It is seen from the records that out of the total amount of Rs.12,05,874/- which was directed to be paid within a period of 3 months, an amount of Rs.8,82,000/- has been duly paid.

5. This Court vide an order dated 20.05.2026, enquired with Page No.# 4/5 the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as to why an amount of Rs.8,82,000/- is stated to be the liability payable to the Petitioner when it was categorically mentioned in the writ proceedings that the Petitioner was entitled to Rs.12,05,874/-. In that regard, an affidavit has been filed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the Petitioner though had submitted the bills of Rs.12,05,874/-, the said bills were mentioned as pending when the writ proceedings was taken up. It was further mentioned that at the time when the Petitioner submitted the bills, the Petitioner calculated the amount not in terms with the Government Notification dated 06.02.2014 wherein the hiring charges of the mini buses up to 20 seater (Force Traveler) is Rs.1,375/- per day and the wages of driver and handyman were Rs.250/- and Rs.150/- respectively per day. On the basis of that Notification, the Petitioner's entitlement was only Rs.8,82,000/-.

6. Taking into account the said explanation, it is the opinion of this Court that the present contempt proceedings cannot be further proceeded with as there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.3870/2024.

7. Accordingly, this Court therefore dismisses the present contempt application. Page No.# 5/5

Before parting with the record, this Court, however, observes that if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the amount, it shall not prejudice the Petitioner on account of the dismissal of the contempt application to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Comparing Assistant JUDGE